US whistleblower Bradley Manning. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

WikiLeaks wins case against Visa

Iceland’s Supreme Court has ruled that Valitor (formerly Visa Iceland) must pay WikiLeaks $204,900 per month or $2,494,604 per year in fines if it continues to blockade the whistle-blowing site.

The court upheld the decision that Valitor had unlawfully terminated its contract with WikiLeaks’ donation processor, DataCell. The Icelandic Supreme Court is the highest court in Iceland. There is no route of appeal for Valitor.

“Today’s decision marked the most important victory to date against the unlawful and arbitrary economic blockade erected by US companies against WikiLeaks,” the organization’s press release stated. – from russia today, WikiLeaks wins case against Visa contractor ordered to pay ‘$204k per month if blockade not lifted’

to help fund open-source journalism, see:

Free Expression Advocates and Journalists Launch Campaign to Support The National Security Archive, The UpTake, MuckRock, and WikiLeaks

The Foundation is designed to crowd-fund a variety of journalism institutions—both start-ups and established organizations—who are dedicated to aggressive, uncompromising journalism in the vein of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers. The organization’s Board of Directors is comprised of journalists and free expression advocates, including John Perry Barlow, Daniel Ellsberg, Xeni Jardin, Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Josh Stearns, and John Cusack.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

WikiLeaks said Wednesday it has secured a victory in Iceland’s Supreme Court against the financial blockade imposed by Visa and MasterCard on donations for the secret-spilling site.

bradley manning is one of many sources who have enabled anyone with internet access to discover what our governments have been doing in secret for the past few decades.

bradley manning is one of many sources who have enabled anyone with internet access to discover what our governments have been doing in secret for the past few decades.

Visa and MasterCard were among half a dozen major U.S. financial firms to pull the plug on WikiLeaks following its decision to begin publishing about 250,000 U.S. State Department cables in late 2010.

WikiLeaks has claimed that the financial blockade led to a 95 percent fall in revenue.

It said Wednesday that Iceland’s Supreme Court had upheld a district court’s decision that MasterCard’s local partner, Valitor, had illegally terminated its contract with WikiLeaks’ payment processer, DataCell.

The court warned Valitor it would be fined 800,000 Icelandic krona ($6,824) per day if the gateway to WikiLeaks donations is not reopened within 15 days, WikiLeaks said. It added that the court’s decision will bolster similar legal actions it is taking elsewhere, such as in Denmark against a Danish subcontractor for Visa.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange — who remains holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, where he is seeking asylum — called the decision a victory for free speech.

“We thank the Icelandic people for showing that they will not be bullied by powerful Washington-backed financial services companies like Visa,” he said in a statement. “And we send out a warning to the other companies involved in this blockade: you’re next.” - from huffington post – WikiLeaks Claims Victory In Iceland Court Case

wikileaks

click on image to see it full sized

Pfc. Bradley E. Manning is escorted from a hearing on January 8, 2013. Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

bradley manning takes full responibility for leaked documents

“No one associated with the WLO [WikiLeaks Organization] pressured me to give them more information,” Manning said. “The decision to give documents to WikiLeaks [was] mine alone.”

FORT MEADE, Md. — Wearing his Army dress uniform, a composed, intense and articulate Pfc. Bradley Manning took “full responsibility” Thursday for providing the anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks with a trove of classified and sensitive military, diplomatic and intelligence cables, videos and documents.

In the lengthiest statement to a military tribunal Manning has provided since his nearly three-year long ordeal began, Manning, 25, said WikiLeaks did not encourage him to provide the organization with any information. But he also sketched out his emotionally fraught online interactions with his WikiLeaks handler, a man he knew as “Ox” or “Nathaniel” over Internet Relay Chat and Jabber, and whom the government maintains was Julian Assange.

Manning’s motivations in leaking, he said, was to “spark a domestic debate of the role of the military and foreign policy in general,” he said, and “cause society to reevaluate the need and even desire to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore their effect on people who live in that environment every day.” Manning said he was in sound mind when he leaked, and did so deliberately, regardless of the legal circumstances.

Pfc. Bradley E. Manning is escorted from a hearing on January 8, 2013. Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Pfc. Bradley E. Manning is escorted from a hearing on January 8, 2013. Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Remarkably, Manning said he first tried to take his information to the Washington Post, the New York Times and Politico, before contacting WikiLeaks.

The statement came as Manning pleaded guilty on Thursday to 10 of 22 charges the Army has levied against him. Manning admitted to improperly storing classified information; having unauthorized possession of such information; willfully communicating it to an unauthorized person; and other “lesser-included” offenses. Each of the 10 offenses to which Manning pleaded guilty carries a sentence of up to two years’ imprisonment, for a total of 20 years in prison.

But Manning pleaded not-guilty to 12 more charges, including the most serious: aiding the enemy, which carries a sentence of life imprisonment. He also denied disseminating any information that he believed could harm U.S. national security, a key aspect of prosecution’s espionage case.

That means the guilty pleas will not necessarily end Manning’s legal woes. The government has the option of pressing forward with the remaining charges, as well as to contest aspects of the lesser charges Manning pleaded guilty to committing. If they proceed, Manning’s trial is expected to formally start here in June.

Manning spoke for over an hour as he read from a 35-page document detailing and explaining his actions that drove him to disclose what he said he “believed, and still believe… are some of the most significant documents of our time.” He rarely grew emotional, with the exception of describing his alienation from his fellow soldiers in Iraq and his relationship with Julian Assange.

Manning described accessing, investigating and ultimately spiriting away and leaking military and diplomatic documents as consistent with his training as an intelligence analyst, attempting to put together a factual picture of complex events. He came to view much of what the Army told him — and the public — to be false, such as the suggestion the military had destroyed a graphic video of an aerial assault in Iraq that killed civilians, or that WikiLeaks was a nefarious entity.

The leaking came gradually, Manning explained — providing a window into the military’s poor data hygiene. While serving at Forward Operating Base Hammer in Iraq in 2009, Manning accessed, compressed and copied databases containing voluminous accounts of military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, known as CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A.

“I never hid the fact that I downloaded copies of CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A” and burned them onto CDs, Manning said, even labeling and storing them “in the open” in his unit’s tactical operations center. Nor did he hide that he also downloaded compression software to facilitate the transfer, Manning said.

That practice apparently made it less conspicuous for Manning to take the burned discs into his military housing, insert them into his personal laptop and send them securely to WikiLeaks’ password-protected online dropbox, often using Tor and other anonymity protocols to mask his identity. Manning stated that he used the same process to spirit away information on detainees at Guantanamo Bay; unspecified documents from an “intelligence agency”; and the State Department’s “Net-Centric Diplomacy” database of diplomatic cables to which the military had access.

Often, Manning would download classified or sensitive information while he simultaneously compiled his intelligence analyses for his unit.

In each of these cases, Manning denied that he was compromising national security. The military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan were often “historic,” with its intelligence value perishable after “48 to 72 hours.” The Guantanamo Bay documents had “no useful intelligence” and did not disclose any results of detainee interrogations. The State Department cables were available to “thousands” of people throughout the government. A Washington Post reporter, David Finkel, had already written about a deadly Apache helicopter attack in 2007, in which civilians were killed, that Manning viewed on video.

Manning said he often found himself frustrated by attempts to get his chain of command to investigate apparent abuses detailed in the documents Manning accessed. “As an analyst, I always want to figure out the truth,” he said. He considered the military unresponsive to the helicopter attack video and other “war porn.” At Guantanamo, while Manning said he had sympathy for the government’s interest in detaining terrorists, “we found ourselves holding an increasing number of individuals indefinitely.”

But Manning conceded that he did not “even look at the proper channels” on how the military chain of command could release the sensitive information.

While in Iraq, Manning — alienated from his fellow soldiers – began visiting WikiLeaks IRC channels and conversing about topics ranging from Linux to gay rights. The chats “allowed me to feel connected to others, even when I was alone,” soothing the emotional stresses of deployment.

But when Manning took a brief mid-tour leave from Iraq in January 2010, he was grappling with disclosing his information trove — but not necessarily to WikiLeaks. While staying with his aunt in Potomac, Md., Manning said he tried to talk to an unnamed Washington Post reporter to interest her in the Iraq and Afghanistan documents, but “I did not believe she took me seriously.” He left voicemails with the public editor and the news-tips lines for the New York Times and heard nothing. A blizzard, he said, kept him from driving to Politico’s office to discuss the documents. According to Manning’s account, only after his attempts to give the documents to mainstream media organizations fail did he consider giving them to WikiLeaks.

from wired – Bradley Manning Takes ‘Full Responsibility’ for Giving WikiLeaks Huge Government Data Trove

Bradley Manning. Military prosecutors are seeking to preclude any discussion of Manning's motives from the trial itself Photograph: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

military judge rules that bradley manning was treated illegally, orders reduced sentence

By Andrew Khouri This post has been updated. See this link for details.

January 8, 2013, 4:17 p.m.

Pfc. Bradley Manning suffered illegal pretrial punishment while in a Marine Corps brig, a military judge ruled Tuesday as she reduced a potential sentence for the former Army intelligence analyst accused of leaking hordes of classified documents.

Bradley Manning. Military prosecutors are seeking to preclude any discussion of Manning's motives from the trial itself Photograph: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Bradley Manning. Military prosecutors are seeking to preclude any discussion of Manning’s motives from the trial itself Photograph: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Col. Denise Lind ruled that Manning, 25, if convicted, would have his prison sentence reduced by 112 days, the Associated Press reported.

The ruling came during a pretrial hearing at Ft. Meade, Md., outside Washington.

Manning’s attorney David E. Coombs had asked Lind to dismiss the charges against Manning, arguing that the private’s nine-month solitary confinement in a Marine brig in Quantico, Va., was illegal punishment.

Manning, facing 22 criminal charges, allegedly leaked hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and classified reports regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the website WikiLeaks. He could be sentenced to life in prison if convicted.

Through his attorney, Manning has indicated he would be willing to plead guilty to a narrower set of charges in order to face fewer years behind bars.

from l.a. times: WikiLeaks case: Judge cuts possible sentence for Bradley Manning

WikiLeaker Bradley Manning Awarded 112-Day Prison Credit for Military’s Abuse

A military judge overseeing pretrial hearings in the Bradley Manning case refused to dismiss the charges against the former Army intelligence analyst Tuesday, according to reports, but ordered that the accused WikiLeaker will be granted a 112-day sentencing credit for mistreatment he received by Marine guards while imprisoned in 2009 and 2010.

In pretrial hearings held in November and December, Manning’s attorney, David E. Coombs, argued that the government subjected his client to unlawful pretrial punishment during his incarceration at the Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Virginia, and asked the court to dismiss the charges against his client based on the treatment, or at a minimum give Manning extra credit for time served at Quantico.

Army Col. Denise Lind, the military judge in the case, chose the latter option, shaving 16 weeks off any sentence Manning eventually faces for allegedly leaking more than a million U.S. military and diplomatic documents to the secret-spilling site WikiLeaks. The government had argued that Manning is only entitled to have seven days cut from his ultimate sentence.

Manning, who turned 25 years old last month, faces 22 charges, the most serious accusing him of aiding the enemy. That’s based on the government’s theory that providing documents to WikiLeaks and having them published on the internet aided al-Qaida, which has access to the internet. The charge carries a possible life sentence or death penalty. Prosecutors have said they will not seek the death penalty, which leaves Manning facing a maximum possible life sentence — a judgement that would obviously make the 112-day credit moot.

Coombs reportedly countered this week that his client didn’t just dump documents to WikiLeaks, but carefully chose only the documents that wouldn’t harm the U.S. or aid the enemy.

from, wired

Bradley Manning ensured leaks would not harm US, lawyer insists

David Coombs tells military hearing that Manning had ‘no evil intent’ to help enemy and selected harmless material to publish

Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of instigating the largest leak of state secrets in US history, consciously selected the information he passed to WikiLeaks to ensure that it would be of no harm to the US and would not aid any foreign enemy, his lawyer argued on Tuesday.

David Coombs, Manning’s civilian lawyer, revealed at a hearing at Fort Meade military base in Maryland what is likely to be a central pillar of the defence case at the soldier’s court martial. A full trial is scheduled to start on 6 March.

Coombs said that the defence would be calling as a witness Adrian Lamo, the hacker who alerted military authorities to Manning’s WikiLeaks activities, to give evidence about the web chat he had with Manning shortly before the soldier’s arrest in Iraq in March 2010. The content of the web chat, Coombs suggested, would be used by the defence to show that Manning selected information to leak that “could not be used to harm the US or advantage any foreign nation”.

The issue of Manning’s motive in allegedly leaking hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables and war logs from Afghanistan and Iraq to WikiLeaks goes to the heart of the case against the soldier, Coombs argued. The most serious charge against him, “aiding the enemy”, that carries a maximum sentence – in this case of life in military custody with no chance of parole – rests on the US government proving that Manning knew, or reasonably should have known, that the leak would be exploited by anti-US forces.

The prosecution has previously stated its case that by placing confidential documents on the internet, Manning in effect handed the intelligence to al-Qaida as the information was then freely available to anyone with a computer.

But Coombs insisted that the content of the Lamo web chats, backed up by evidence of other unnamed witnesses who would be called at trial, would show that Manning had no “evil intent” to help the enemy. Quite the contrary: he actively selected the material he passed on for its harmless impact on the US. He also believed that “information that is out in public can’t do any harm”, and thus having it “out there” would negate any of its potential for damaging national interests, Coombs said.

The disclosure of such an important line of defence – that goes to the core of Manning’s thinking as he embarked on the massive WikiLeaks trove of state secrets – came amid legal argument relating to a prosecution motion relating to the issue of motivation. The military prosecutors are seeking to preclude any discussion of Manning’s motives from the trial itself, arguing that they are irrelevant to determining whether or not he committed the offences for which he is charged.

from the guardian.co.uk,

big props for the bradley manning support network for spreading the word!;

Breaking: Military judge rules Bradley Manning illegally treated ~ Bradley Manning Support Network

 

 

Guardian person of the year: Bradley Manning

 being brave and standing up for what you think is right is not a competitive sport, but tell that to people running polls to recognize ONE person as THE “person of the year.”

The Guardian’s 2012 person of the year vote has concluded and the winner, after some rather fishy voting patterns that belied earlier reader comments on the poll, is Bradley Manning, the US whistleblower on trial for leaking state secrets.

US whistleblower Bradley Manning. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

US whistleblower Bradley Manning. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

It was very much a game of two halves. The overwhelming majority of early votes in the three-day poll went to Malala Yousafzai, the 14-year-old Pakistani girl shot by the Taliban for defending girls’ right to education. Malala, who is still recovering from injuries sustained in October, had 70 percent of votes at the halfway stage with many readers predicting a foregone conclusion. “What that kid did really focussed the world on the evil that these men can do – and what evil all people can do when they feel inclined. But it also showed the courage to pull through and the will of others to not succumb to evil,” wrote jamieTWC1.

But in the latter stages, following a series of tweets from the @Wikileaks twitter handle telling followers to vote Manning, thousands of voters flocked to his cause. Manning secured 70 percent of the vote, the vast majority of them coming after a series of @Wikileaks tweets. Project editor Mark Rice-Oxley said: “It was an interesting exercise that told us a lot about our readers, our heroes and the reasons that people vote.”

The Guardian Admits Bradley Manning is Person of the Year in Grotesque Sulking Fit

It seems The Guardian was shocked by this outcome, as evidenced by approximately 36 hours of silence, before a pathetic attempt at announcing Manning as the winner.

The article is only a small blurb in the middle of their homepage, which talks about “fishy voting patterns,” their favourite Malala, and making it sound like a few tweets from @WikiLeaks is what won it for Manning. It mentions nothing of Manning’s courage to do the right thing, revealing war crimes, or his treatment amounting to torture since being detained.

To The Guardian: It wasn’t just a tweet, it wasn’t just WikiLeaks supporters that made Bradley Manning your 2012 Person of the Year, it was the awakened masses that value free speech, truth, peace, government transparency and accountability.

from leaksource

Malala Yousafzai officially nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

The teenage Woman’s Rights activist in Pakistan who was shot by the Taliban is officially being nominated for the next Nobel Peace Prize.

More than 150 French lawmakers have formally asked the Nobel Committee to award the next Nobel Peace Prize to the Pakistani campaigner for girls’ education Malala Yousafzai.

Malala Yousufzai

For five years now, Malala has been active as a blogger. In October, she was seriously injured in an assassination attack by the Pakistani Taliban.

Many people are calling for her to be the TIME Person of the Year after this year’s Nobel Peace Prize went to the European Union.

She truly has been an inspiration to many, including Hollywood star Angelina Jolie.

“I felt compelled to share Malala’s story with my children. It was difficult for them to comprehend a world where men would try to kill a child whose only “crime” was the desire that she and others like her be allowed to go to school,” Jolie wrote back in October.

Yousafzai may be among odd company vying for the TIME Person of the Year: Joe Biden, Bashir al-Assad (the Syrian dictator) or Chris Christie.

“Malala is proof that it only takes the voice of one brave person to inspire countless men, women, and children. In classrooms and at kitchen tables around the world, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters are praying for Malala’s swift recovery and committing themselves to carry her torch. As the Nobel Committee meets to determine the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, I imagine brave Malala will be given serious consideration.”

from the global dispatch – Malala Yousafzai officially nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

 

 

bradley manning’s genderqueer identity used to portray him as mentally unstable

The US military held WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning under strict “suicide watch” partly because his gender identity struggle showed he was mentally “not stable,” a witness said.

Manning, a former army intelligence analyst in Iraq, is accused of the biggest intelligence leak in American history for allegedly passing a massive trove of classified documents to Julian Assange’s anti-secrecy website.

Manning’s purported gender struggle came up at a pre-trial hearing as his defense urged a military judge to dismiss the case, citing alleged “unlawful punishment” endured by thesoldier during nine months of solitary confinement.

Master Sergeant Craig Blenis, who served as a counselor at the Quantico military base where the WikiLeaks suspect was detained, said the gender issue “on top of other things” was a factor that determined his detention status.

It “shows he’s not stable,” Blenis told the court, explaining why Manning was put under stringent “prevention of injury” status at the Virginia base.

The subject of Manning’s alter ego, Breanna, first arose in hearings last year. In court documents, the defense argues that prison authorities displayed “intolerance and homophobia” in their treatment of Manning, now aged 24.

Mladen Antonov/AFP/FileA member of the Bradley Manning Support Group holds a banner during a rally at the entrance to Fort George Meade military base in Fort Meade, Maryland on November 27. The US military held WikiLeaks suspect Manning under strict "suicide watch" partly because his gender identity struggle showed he was mentally "not stable," a witness said Sunday.

Mladen Antonov/AFP/File
A member of the Bradley Manning Support Group holds a banner during a rally at the entrance to Fort George Meade military base in Fort Meade, Maryland on November 27. The US military held WikiLeaks suspect Manning under strict “suicide watch” partly because his gender identity struggle showed he was mentally “not stable,” a witness said Sunday.

Blenis was pressed on why he recommended that the army private remain under harsh, maximum custody despite filing reports that described him as a model detainee and advice of psychiatrists, who said the accused was not suicidal.

The defense also confronted Blenis with an email that shows him joking with his commanding officer about a possible birthday package addressed to Manning that the Quantico jail rejected because it had not been cleared in advance.

In the email, Blenis lists the official reasons why the package was refused but added that the decision was taken because they “felt like being” difficult.

Blenis said Manning’s reluctance to engage in conversations with troops overseeing his detention caused him concern, particularly because the accused admitted to having suicidal thoughts upon arriving at Quantico in July 2010.

Manning’s civilian defense lawyer David Coombs suggested that his client, who was earlier held in US custody in Kuwait, was merely a man of few words.

“Is it possible you’re looking at a quiet guy?” asked Coombs.

“That’s not what I thought,” the sergeant replied.

Manning was held at Quantico until April 2011 before being transferred to a prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where authorities concluded he was not suicidal and could be held under more lenient conditions.

Legal experts say it is unlikely that Judge Denise Lind will throw out the case because of Manning’s detention measures, but she could take the issue into account during sentencing, if the soldier is found guilty as charged.

If convicted on all 22 counts, including a charge of “aiding the enemy,” Manning could spend the rest of his life in prison.

His trial has been pushed back to March 2013 instead of February that year, Judge Lind announced earlier.

In a video presented to the court, Blenis was seen speaking to Manning through prison bars, telling him that he is a trouble-free inmate: “I wish I had a 100 Mannings.”

In the video, Manning can be seen standing naked from the waist up, with his arms behind him — prison authorities forced him to strip at night as part of the prevention of injury (POI) regime.

from CNBnews.net – WikiLeaks suspect’s gender struggle under spotlight

Lawyer for Bradley Manning describes his treatment as “stupid and criminal”

The lawyer representing Bradley Manning, the US Army private accused of leaking classified information to the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks, has issued a damning indictment of his client’s “criminal” treatment in solitary confinement.

“Brad’s treatment at Quantico will forever be etched in our nation’s history as a disgraceful moment in time,” Manning’s defense attorney David Combs said in his first-ever public appearance regarding US v. Manning.

“Not only was it stupid and counterproductive – it was criminal,” he continued in his scathing condemnation of the “unlawful pretrial punishment” that PFC Manning was subjected to for nine months while held at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia.

Combs first public comments since becoming Manning’s lawyer two years ago were timed to correspond with the conclusion of the Article 13 hearing – a defense motion alleging Manning had endured unlawful pre-trial punishment.

Manning spent the first nine months of his pretrial detention in a 6-by-8 foot cell in solitary confinement, conditions which Combs described as “draconian.”

Under constant surveillance, Manning spent around 23 hours each day confined to his “cage-like” cell, and was denied basic items such as toilet paper and bedclothes.

The strict conditions were a result of Manning’s designation as a “suicide risk,” though the 24-year-old said during a pre-trial hearing late last month that he “didn’t want to die,” he just wanted to “get out of the cage.”

He was later transferred to another detention center in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, in April 2011.

“As far as his mental state or how he is …I can tell you that he is very excited about having his case go forward and it’s in the process now. It’s been a long time,” Combs explained.

from rt – ‘Stupid and criminal’: Lawyer for Bradley Manning speaks out

see also:

Treated like ‘a caged animal’: Manning breaks silence in WikiLeaks hearing

"Hands off Wikileaks” and “Free Bradley Manning” rally. Melbourne 29/1/2011

Julian Assange loses appeal against extradition – also, rap news #13

Julian Assange has lost his appeal against extradition to Sweden at the supreme court.

By a majority of five to two, the justices decided that a public prosecutor was “judicial authority” and that therefore his arrest warrant had been lawfully issued.

But lawyers for the WikiLeaks founder submitted an urgent request to the supreme court asking for permission to challenge one of the points made in the judgment.

Assange, who is facing charges of sexual assault and rape, was not in court. There was no legal requirement for him to be present. According to his solicitor, Gareth Peirce, he was stuck in traffic.

The court granted Assange’s lawyers 14 days to present their arguments that crucial issues related to Article 31 of the Vienna convention, on which the majority of the justices based their decision, were not raised during the hearing.

The two judges who found in Assange’s favour were Lord Mance and Lady Hale.

for background, see previous post: UK Court to decide on Extradition of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange

Assange’s lawyers can also, at the same time, begin the process of appealing against the judgment to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg.

According to the supreme court, the Crown Prosecution Service cannot start extraditing Assange until 13 June at the earliest.

“The majority of the judges believe that parliament was seriously misled when it approved the European arrest warrant system,” said Peirce.

“Parliament thought a ‘judicial authority’ meant a judge or court but the majority of supreme court judges based their decision on what is the practice in Europe and decided it on the basis of the Vienna convention, which was never argued before the court.”

Even though Lord Brown has retired, at the age of 75, since the original hearing, he may still be called back to ensure there are an uneven number of justices on the panel when the court considers Assange’s emergency application.

This is the first time the supreme court has agreed to consider an emergency challenge to one of its rulings. It has happened in the past when the House of Lords was the highest appellate court.

via Julian Assange loses appeal against extradition | Media | guardian.co.uk.

RAP NEWS 13: A News Hope

It is a time of corporate war; deprived of a reliable media the people of Planet Earth are kept misinformed and in a state of perpetual conflict. Is an honest Fourth Estate the only Force than can restore peace and balance to the Galaxy? To find out, we consult two of journalism’s most influential and inflammatory figures: Rebel journalist enfant terrible, Julian Assange, who awaits a verdict in London which could see him ‘extradited’ to Sweden. And on the opposite end of the journalistic spectrum: Rupert Murdoch, head of the mighty NewsCorp media Empire, embroiled in legal scandals that go to the highest and lowest levels of celebrity in Britain.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange holds up a copy of the Guardian after thousands of US military documents were leaked. Photograph: Andrew Winning/REUTERS

UK Court to decide on Extradition of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange

Rallies on the 31st May: Details on Wikileaks Central

julian assangeThe judgment in WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange’s final appeal against extradition to Sweden will be published by the UK Supreme Court on Wednesday 30 May.

If Assange loses he will be sent to Sweden by force within 10 days. From Sweden, he could be sent immediately to the US where he faces prosecution for publishing information just like any other journalist. Even if he wins the appeal, the US will likely seek to extradite him from the UK or Australia.

Assange has been under house arrest in the UK for over 530 days, a situation which Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, has admitted is “extraordinary”. And Foreign Minister Carr has called aspects of the Swedish justice system “an outrage by Australian standards”. But they have done nothing to assist Assange.

Instead, our Prime Minister Julia Gillard labelled Assange a criminal and her government has been quietly passing legislation which will potentially make it easier for Assange to be extradited to the US, should he ever return to Australia. They have denied all knowledge of the sealed indictment against Assange and continue to block FOI requests for information relating to documents relating to potential US extradition, reportedly at the behest of the US government.

National Rallies occuring on the 31st May (Australia)

Cables reveal Australia, US focus on Assange

WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange remains the target of a US government criminal investigation and the subject of US-Australian intelligence exchanges, Australian diplomatic cables obtained by the Herald reveal.

Australian diplomats have closely monitored the US Department of Justice investigation into WikiLeaks over the past 18 months. The embassy in Washington reported ”a broad range of possible charges are under consideration, including espionage and conspiracy”.

The diplomats dismiss Mr Assange’s claims that the US investigation is politically motivated retribution for WikiLeaks’ publication of leaked US military and diplomatic reports. They instead highlight US prosecutors’ claims that the alleged leaker, Bradley Manning, dealt directly with Mr Assange and ”data-mined” secret US databases ”guided by WikiLeaks’ list of ‘most wanted’ leaks”.

Mr Assange will learn on Wednesday the British Supreme Court’s decision on his appeal against extradition to Sweden to be questioned about sexual assault allegations. Mr Assange, who has not been charged with any offence, fears extradition to Stockholm will facilitate his ultimate extradition to the US.

Despite extensive redactions, the Australian diplomatic cables released under freedom of information show the US and Australian governments continued high-level exchanges on WikiLeaks last year.

The Australian embassy in Washington provided Canberra with regular updates, including reporting on Justice Department efforts aimed at ”casting the net beyond Assange to see if any intermediaries had been involved in communications between Assange and Manning”.

An embassy representative attended all seven days of Private Manning’s pre-court martial hearing for last December. Much of the embassy’s reporting has been redacted on grounds that its release would damage Australia’s diplomatic relations.

There have been continuing US-Australian intelligence exchanges on WikiLeaks. Two embassy cables were withheld from release as ”intelligence agency documents” that are exempt from FOI legislation. The chairman of the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security, Labor MP Anthony Byrne, also held discussions with senior US intelligence in January last year, covering a range of topics that included ”cyber security, particularly in light of the recent breaches of diplomatic cables from the US (WikiLeaks) and dissemination of sensitive information by the international media”.

from the sydney morning herlad - Cables reveal Australia, US focus on Assange

Good.is and Column Five have put together a very detailed and creative infographic that reports the quest to plug WikiLeaks. Click the image to enlarge.

see previous posts:

Julian Assange’s lawyer needed “official approval” to return to australia

the Obama administration’s war against truth, julian assange

related to wikileaks:

stratfor info dump revealed international spying, insider trading, and paranoia

WikiLeaks denounces UNESCO for banning WikiLeaks from conference about WikiLeaks

Australian group gives wikileaks founder Julian Assange peace prize

related to bradley manning

Manning challenges U.S. to prove he ‘aided the enemy’

Bradley Manning’s treatment was cruel and inhuman, UN torture chief rules

Bradley Manning formally charged with aiding the united state’s enemies – the american public

Icelandic Parliamentarians Nominate Bradley Manning for Nobel Peace Prize

excellent bio of Bradley Manning, from Wikipedia

A photo on the Greek ministry of justice website after it was hacked by Anonymous in February 2012. Anonymous came in first place in Time Magazine’s 2012 online poll on the most influential "person" in the world.

Anonymous: We Have Access to Every Secret Government Database

Anonymous has been meek and quiet since the great Sabu treachery, failing to even threaten much of anything. But in a new interview, one of the group’s last remaining leaders says Anon has a nuclear card up its sleeve.

Christopher “Commander X” Doyon, whose name is public because he’s been busted for hacking a California government website, sat for an interview with the National Post. The exchange circles mostly around Doyon’s exile in Canada, where he’s hoping to dodge the wrath of American feds. But he ends on one particularly ominous and/or laughable note:

Q. What’s next for Anonymous?

A: Right now we have access to every classified database in the U.S. government. It’s a matter of when we leak the contents of those databases, not if. You know how we got access? We didn’t hack them. The access was given to us by the people who run the systems.

On the face of it, this is an absurd claim. “Every classified database in the U.S. government” is an outrageously ambitious catch, almost surely too vast to be possible—did someone from literally every government agency sell out to Anonymous? All of them? Even one cache would be a huge feat—see Cablegate—but all of them? It reeks of a tall tale, particularly from an organization with a serious credibility problem (remember when they said they were going to end Mexican drug cartels? Right).

But Doyon’s lesser point, that the next great Anonymous coup would be an inside job, is entirely plausible:

The five-star general (and) the Secretary of Defence who sit in the cushy plush offices at the top of the Pentagon don’t run anything anymore. It’s the pimply-faced kid in the basement who controls the whole game, and Bradley Manning proved that.

Commander X is right: it’s amazingly easy for anyone with access to powerful data to spread that data around. So while Anon likely isn’t sitting on the collective knowledge of every secret filing cabinet in the United States government, they could have their mitts on some of them. And that alone still makes them dangerous as hell.

reposted from gizmodo

more, from the national post:

Insider tells why Anonymous ‘might well be the most powerful organization on Earth’

Christopher Doyon, a.k.a. Commander X, sits atop a hillside in an undisclosed location in Canada, watching a reporter and photographer make their way along a narrow path to join him, away from the prying eyes of law enforcement.

It’s been a few weeks of encrypted emails back and forth, working out the security protocol to follow for interviewing Doyon, one of the brains behind Anonymous, now a fugitive from the FBI.

Doyon, who readily admits taking part in some of the highest-profile hacktivist attacks on websites last year — from Tunisia to Orlando, Sony to PayPal — was arrested in September for a comparatively minor assault on the county website of Santa Cruz, Calif., where he was living, in retaliation for the town forcibly removing a homeless encampment on the courthouse steps.

The “virtual sit-in” lasted half an hour. For that, Doyon is facing 15 years in jail.

Or at least he was facing 15 years in jail, until he crossed the border into Canada in February to avoid prosecution, using what he calls the new “underground railroad” and a network of safe houses across the country.

Thanks to his indictment, Doyon is one of the few Anonymous members whose real name is now publicly known.

But as the leader of the People’s Liberation Front — a hacker group allied with Anonymous — and the second-most wanted information activist after WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange, he prefers not to show his face, and instead dons the ubiquitous Guy Fawkes mask, to wear with his Sunday best: a sweatshirt with the Anonymous calling card, “We do not forgive … We do not forget.”
click on link above to see full article.

Related